You believe the US Senate is gerrymandered?
Take a deep breath and try again. Did that dastardly GOP move those state lines again?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
U.S. Senate Votes to Restore Net Neutrality, Now Expected to Face Major Hurdle in House
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Take a deep breath and try again. Did that dastardly GOP move those state lines again?
Frustrating how partisan this is and how much misinformation is going around to confuse people about it.
Most of those "support" and "oppose" people don't even know what it is. Sites like Reddit that told people to support it gave misleading or inaccurate descriptions, and I'm guessing the misinformation spread to the opposition.Simply not true.
Last edited:
That data is from Nov 2017, it's a bit oldSimply not true.
A study right afterwards, after a number of education campaigns about what NN is, saw that rise dramatically https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ublicans-was-striking/?utm_term=.2e22f5220fa2
And even more current polls show even higher support: "Outside of Washington, D.C., net neutrality isn’t a partisan issue. Americans from red and blue states alike agree that equal access to the internet is a right, including: 79% of Colorado residents, 81% of Arizona residents, and 80% of North Carolina residents", full data: https://blog.mozilla.org/wp-content...ty-Survey-State-Boost-Topline-02-27-20182.pdf
That graph proves my point. It shows that in fact, no, 90% of Americans do not support NN. 52% do. It should be 99.99% but people are easily confused.Simply not true.
Last edited:
If what they are saying is indeed true, then why are they spending millions of dollars and fighting tooth and nail to get rid of net neutrality? It doesn't square.
Most Americans won’t care until later when they start seeing their internet bills rise. Most will complain, some will accept it and keep paying, few will actually ask why.
??????
Trump will do a news conference and say if this is reversed...the national security will be at stake...and he will need another $500,000,000 for the military budget asap.
"90% of vocal Americans"
Fixed it for you.
Most people don't even know what the heck net neutrality really is.
Instead of saying we’re pro Net Neutrality, we should say we’re against Net Hostility. Are you for or against Net Hostility?
We should say we are against Comcast. Tell people Comcast is against NN and they will be for it.
This is only surprising if one hasn’t been paying attention to politics since Reagan.
Very funny!
Changing the name of an issue to make their side sound better is what politicians do best.
It is a testament to the incompetence of republicans that they cannot get major legislation passed as the majority and democrats got this minor thing passed as the minority. Impressive. I am also surprised net neutrality falls along political lines. It seems like a stupid and pointless thing to me because there seem to be lots of potential upsides but there are legitimate concerns about markets where there are limited providers (it seems the answer there is to stop letting local governments shut out competition which they are clearly doing). Most of the concerns with net neutrality are paranoia as there is little evidence that without net neutrality (the way the internet has always run) there were issues of concern to most people.
It was always a terrible name. I wouldn't be surprised if it was first coined by a politician or ISP to make it intentionally confusing, but alas it was actually coined by a university law professor who was trying to preserve the open internet. *facepalm* Half the battle is always marketing. Apple wouldn't be successful today at all whatsoever without marketing. But in this case it's hardly marketing. There is nothing wrong with bringing clarity to what net neutrality actually means through a rebranding effort. Net hostility probably isn't the best term either, but at least people can wrap their mind around the concept that ISPs want a hostile takeover of the internet so that they can control the flow of information, ideas and money online. Maybe information freedom? Tell 'muricans that you're taking away their freedom and they start losing their freaking minds.
But that’s an Federal Trade Commision issue, not a Federal Communications Commision issue. The popular opinion on this is built on a terribly misguided foundation. Title II classification is not the same as Net Neutrality.
The ‘net neutrality’ FCC regulations as written, do not achieve what you want, and create additional issues. To believe otherwise, you’ve been mislead or just deliberate intellectual dishonesty.
Unfair trade practices, which is what you are describing, are handled by the FTC. Sorry Net Neuts, you got the wrong agency. Go there and complain you’re being charged differently for the exact same bits of data.
This deserves to fail in the House. Those that really care should do net neutrality the right way, rather than the wrong way by creating another redundant, expensive, extraneous, ineffective, mismanaged government monstrosity.
I’m so glad the Senate is wasting time voting on legislation that has little to no chance of passing the House or being signed by Trump, when there’s any number of more pressing and important things that need to be taken care of in this country.
But hey, if it’s to score cheap political points in the run up to November, why not?
But hey, if it’s to score cheap political points in the run up to November, why not?
No, that would be misleading naming. We should stop lying about what the repeal means. It's not about fast and slow lanes. It's not about charging "more" for internet access. Yet that's what everyone thinks it is.
Look how many people here are vocally supporting NN. Look at how many people here were praising T-Mobile for blatantly attacking it with free access to certain video sites. Ask the average person, and they'll say they favor both, and they contradict each other.
There are valid arguments against NN, but I think most people would support if if they knew better. Thanks to the confusing BS, FUD, and condescending language blasted by sites like https://www.battleforthenet.com and certain tech corps for ruining that. Had I not looked up the straight definition on Wikipedia myself, I'd be opposed to net neutrality. I swear Democrats are geniuses at convincing people to support the opposite side; slow clap for every major news outlet making half the country think they're fake now.
Last edited:
Yes, but how about we phrase it more like this: Netflix wants to pay your ISP to make sure you get the highest bandwidth to watch your movies all the time. However, the government wants to stop Netflix from allowing you to get the best bandwidth possible. Should the government be allowed to stop Netflix from making your life better?
Sure, everyone agrees to platitudes. Actual policy implications are much trickier propositions.
Amazing that only three Rep. voted with Dems. Sad the state of our democracy.
Thank you for getting this. So, so, so many people discussing this issue completely ignore the fact that it is the FTC which is charged with enforcing these sorts of violations.